Professional Documents
Culture Documents
245
246 The Journal of Social Psychology
Addressing the possibility that not all procrastination behaviors have nega-
tive effects, we conceptually distinguished two different types of procrastinators:
passive versus active procrastinators. Passive procrastinators are procrastinators
in the traditional sense. Cognitively, passive procrastinators do not intend to pro-
crastinate, but they often end up postponing tasks because of their inability to
make decisions quickly and to thereby act on them quickly. Active procrastina-
tors, in contrast, are capable of acting on their decisions in a timely manner. How-
ever, they suspend their actions deliberately and focus their attention on other
important tasks at hand. Therefore, passive procrastinators differ from active pro-
crastinators on cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions.
Affectively, when a deadline approaches, passive procrastinators feel pres-
sured and become pessimistic in their outlook, especially about their ability to
achieve satisfactory results (Ferrari, Parker, & Ware, 1992). Their thoughts of
self-doubt and inadequacy increase the chance of failure and induce feelings of
guilt and depression (Steel, Brothen, & Wambach, 2001). Active procrastinators,
on the other hand, like to work under pressure. When faced with last-minute
tasks, they feel challenged and motivated, and that feeling immunizes them
against the kind of suffering common in passive procrastinators. Different cog-
nitive pathways and affective responses interact to produce different behavioral
patterns: Active procrastinators are persistent and able to complete tasks at the
last minute. Passive procrastinators, on the other hand, are more likely to give up
and fail to complete tasks.
On the basis of the above circumstances, we proposed that active pro-
crastination is a multifaceted phenomenon that includes cognitive (decision
to procrastinate), affective (preference for time pressure), and behavioral
(task completion by the deadline) components as well as the physical results
and satisfaction with them. Because of these fundamental differences (cog-
nitive, affective, and behavioral), we expected active and passive procrasti-
nators to have distinct psychological characteristics and to achieve different
outcomes.
structured and to perceive their use of time to be more purposive. Traditional (pas-
sive) procrastinators, who incorporate less structure in their time use, may drift
aimlessly from one activity to another (Bond & Feather, 1988). Active procrasti-
nators, in contrast, are expected to be different from passive procrastinators in
having more time structure and a better sense of purpose in their time use because
they are able to make deliberate decisions regarding their time use on the basis
of urgency or priority. In this sense, active procrastinators are similar to nonpro-
crastinators in terms of engagement in time-structuring behaviors and purposive
use of time.
Despite the fact that we can measure time, our perception of time is a truly
subjective experience (Macan, 1994). Lay (1990) found passive procrastinators
to underestimate the overall time that was required to complete tasks. Conse-
quently, they often failed to complete tasks on time, triggering the perception of
reduced control of time (Lay & Schouwenburg, 1993). In contrast, nonprocrasti-
nators, who constantly engage in planning and organizing, tend to have more real-
istic perceptions of time and to perceive more control over their time (Macan).
Active procrastinators may be similar to nonprocrastinators in that they take
charge of their time and try to maximize the efficiency of their time use. Conse-
quently, they would develop an awareness of their time use and a perception of
time control.
Self-Efficacy
Motivational Orientation
Hypothesis 3a: Both nonprocrastinators and active procrastinators will report a high-
er level of extrinsic motivation than that which passive procrastinators will report.
Nonprocrastinators and active procrastinators are not different on this dimension.
Stress-Coping Strategy
When dealing with stress, individuals try to remove the threat from the stres-
sor or to reduce the discomfort caused by the stressor (Latack & Havlovic, 1992).
The three most frequently mentioned coping strategies include task-oriented strate-
gies, emotion-oriented strategies, and avoidance-oriented strategies (Carver,
Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989; Endler & Parker, 1990, 1994; Kosic, 2004). Task-ori-
ented coping strategies reduce stress by focusing on immediate problems. Emotion-
250 The Journal of Social Psychology
oriented coping strategies involve diminishing the emotional distress that is induced
by the stressors. And avoidance-oriented coping strategies involve ignoring a prob-
lem or distracting oneself from it. Although most stressors elicit a mixture of cop-
ing strategies, task-oriented strategies predominate when individuals feel that they
can do something constructive in regard to the situation, and emotion- and avoid-
ance-oriented strategies emerge when people feel that they do not have much con-
trol over the stressors (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980). Therefore, a persons self-effi-
cacy level partially determines which coping strategy he or she will use.
Expanding this line of thought, we expected that nonprocrastinators will use
task-oriented coping strategies to alleviate stress by considering realistic alterna-
tives in response to problems they face. Nonprocrastinators may have a higher
level of self-efficacy belief (Hypothesis 2) and thus believe that they have some
control over the stressors and are capable of improving their situation. As a result,
instead of engaging in irrelevant tasks or self-handicapping behaviors, they will
choose to work on solving the problems at hand. Similarly, active procrastinators
will use task-oriented coping, because their high level of self-efficacy belief
makes them feel competent to overcome stressful circumstances.
In contrast, we expected passive procrastinators to use either emotion- or
avoidance-oriented coping strategies when encountering stressful events. Ferrari
and Tice (2000) found that procrastinators were more concerned about their self-
image than were nonprocrastinators, offering another explanation for the coping
strategy that was used. Low self-efficacy belief and concern for poor self-image
together make passive procrastinators feel powerless and cause them to actively
avoid negative situations. As a result, they may cry, complain, or whine to express
their frustration and fears; they may engage in trivial, irrelevant tasks to distract
themselves; or they may ignore tasks completely.
Personal Outcomes
Method
Measures
Patterns of time use. Adopting items from the Time Structure Questionnaire
(Bond & Feather, 1988), we assessed two aspects of time use. One was the struc-
ture of time use (3 items, = .70, e.g., I have a daily routine, which I follow),
and the other was purposive use of time (3 items, = .73, e.g., I often feel that
my life is aimless, with no definite purpose).
Self-efficacy belief. The self-efficacy belief scale included four items ( = .76)
drawn from the Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (Schwarzer & Jerusalem,
Chu & Choi 253
Motivational orientation. The motivation scale contained seven items from Shias
(1998) Academic Motivation Questionnaire. We measured both extrinsic motiva-
tion (3 items, = .70, e.g., Getting a good grade in my classes is the most sat-
isfying thing for me right now) and intrinsic motivation (4 items, = .75, e.g.,
I like courses that arouse my curiosity, even if they are difficult) for school
activities.
Stress. We used a four-item scale ( = .77) to measure the level of stress that indi-
viduals had experienced in the previous month (MacArthur & MacArthur, 2001;
e.g., In the past one month, how often did you feel difficulties were piling up so
high that you could not overcome them?). Each statement was rated on a 7-point
Likert-type scale (1 = never, 7 = very often).
Life satisfaction. This scale consisted of four items ( = .82) that assess stu-
dents general satisfaction with life (e.g., In general, I am satisfied with my
life).
Results
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Academic
procrastination 4.51 1.22
2. Active
procrastination 4.36 0.79 .03
3. Time structure 4.04 1.32 .27*** .10
4. Purposive use
of time 4.72 1.47 .27*** .24*** .11
The Journal of Social Psychology
5. Perceived time
control 4.27 1.43 .40*** .20** .19** .36***
6. Self-efficacy 5.10 1.04 .13* .34*** .05 .32*** .47***
7. Extrinsic
motivation 4.13 1.44 .01 .20** .19** .16* .19** .27***
8. Intrinsic
motivation 4.98 1.15 .06 .10 .20** .15* .07 .25*** .04
9. Task coping 4.96 0.99 .05 .27*** .07 .28*** .17* .43*** .03
10. Emotion
coping 4.34 1.59 .16* .05 .05 .14* .12 .10 .09
11. Avoidance
coping 3.19 1.30 .23** .22** .02 .45*** .24*** .35*** .20**
12. Stress 4.17 1.26 .25*** .31*** .00 .39*** .38*** .44*** .24***
13. Depression 2.93 1.18 .18** .27*** .04 .56*** .33*** .44*** .18**
14. Life satisfaction 4.97 1.16 .10 .19** .18** .46*** .35*** .44*** .06
15. GPA 3.25 0.40 .20** .23** .11 .24** .14* .30*** .02
(table continues)
TABLE 1. Continued
Variable 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
8. Intrinsic
motivation
9. Task coping .30***
10. Emotion
coping .01 .03
11. Avoidance
coping .12 .30*** .23***
12. Stress .03 .27*** .19** .31***
13. Depression .08 .26*** .02 .37*** .55***
14. Life satisfaction .13* .30*** .08 .24*** .39*** .71***
15. GPA .27*** .22** .02 .23** .18* .22** .23**
Time use and perception. The results of the ANOVA shown in Table 2 indicated
that, as we hypothesized, there were significant mean differences in patterns of
time use and time perception among the three groups. Nonprocrastinators and
active procrastinators showed higher levels of purposive use of time and time con-
trol than did passive procrastinators (F = 7.34, p < .01, and F = 19.50, p < .001,
respectively; for all F tests hereafter, df = 2, 227, effect size estimates in Cohens
d ranging between 0.41 and 1.06, all significant at p < .001). Nonprocrastinators
reported greater perceived time control than did active procrastinators (d = .56,
TABLE 2. Results of One-Way ANOVA: Comparisons of Means of Nonprocrastinators, Passive Procrastinators, and Active
Procrastinators
p < .001), but the difference between the two groups in purposive use of time was
not significant (d = .17, ns). Surprisingly, however, active procrastinators report-
ed a lower level of time structure than did the other two groups (both ds > .49, p
< .01), and the difference between nonprocrastinators and passive procrastinators
was not significant (d = .25, ns). We will address this counterintuitive pattern
regarding time structure later in the present article.
ing that these two groups achieved positive outcomes to a comparable degree (all
ds < .22, ns). In contrast, a series of paired t tests showed that passive procrasti-
nators were significantly different from both nonprocrastinators and active pro-
crastinators, reporting greater stress, more feelings of depression, and lower
GPAs (all ds > .39, ps < .017).
We could have directly tested the present hypotheses through a series of com-
parisons among the three different groups of individuals as shown in Table 2.
However, because the present article describes the construct of active procrasti-
nation for the first time and because it is a continuous variable, it would be ben-
eficial to understand how various attitude and coping variables that we use in the
present study predict this new construct. To this end, we conducted regression
analyses that evaluate the prediction of academic procrastination and active pro-
crastination. As shown in Table 3, we used all variables that were included in this
study as predictors, except the four outcome measures (stress, life satisfaction,
depression, and GPA), because it is conceptually unlikely that these outcomes
determine procrastination behavior.
The results showed that both (a) the traditional procrastination behavior as
indicated by academic procrastination and (b) active procrastination behavior
were negatively related to perceived time structure ( = .19, p < .01, and =
.13, p < .05, respectively). However, only academic procrastination was associ-
Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to empirically test whether there are
different types of procrastinators. In particular, we attempted to identify a posi-
tive type of procrastinator, which we termed active procrastinators. Contrary to
prevailing assumptions about procrastinators, we revealed that a subset of pro-
crastinators (i.e., active procrastinators) indeed possess desirable attitudinal and
behavioral characteristics, even though they may engage in the same level of pro-
crastination as traditional negative procrastinators (i.e., passive procrastina-
tors). Members of this newly identified group of procrastinators, active procras-
tinators, prefer to work under pressure and make deliberate procrastination
decisions. They are more likely to accomplish tasks with satisfactory outcomes
than passive procrastinators, who are often paralyzed by indecision regarding
action and haunted by past failure to complete tasks.
The present results indicate the possibility that nonprocrastinators and active
procrastinators share similar characteristics and are significantly different from
passive procrastinators. Nonprocrastinators and active procrastinators both tend
to have higher levels of purposive use of time, time control, and self-efficacy than
do passive procrastinators. In addition, nonprocrastinators and active procrasti-
nators are more likely to experience positive outcomes. This pattern indicates that
while active procrastinators procrastinate to the same degree as do passive pro-
crastinators, mean difference = .10, t(151) = .84, their personal characteristics
and outcomes are quite more similar to those of nonprocrastinators.
Future studies are needed to investigate the precise mechanisms underlying this
unexpected pattern by examining variables such as degree of awareness of envi-
ronmental demands or willingness to make changes.
In line with Contis (2000) study, we hypothesized that both nonprocrastina-
tors and active procrastinators will have a higher level of extrinsic motivation than
will passive procrastinators. Interestingly, passive procrastinators turned out to
have the highest level of extrinsic motivation. In the research setting of the present
study, we constantly evaluated students performance on the basis of externally
imposed requirements, which often effectively reduce an individuals sense of
autonomy and enjoyment in regard to a task (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Therefore, stu-
dents who have extrinsic reasons for studying may feel controlled and pressured
and find the task to be aversive. To avoid these unpleasant feelings and percep-
tions of being forced to engage in particular activities, they might be more likely
to postpone their academic work (Blunt & Pychyl, 1998; Lay, 1990). Passive pro-
crastinators, who have weak self-efficacy beliefs, may find imposed requirements
unpleasant. For this reason, they may develop task aversion and postpone acade-
mic work to avoid feelings of incompetence. From this perspective, the only rea-
son for passive procrastinators to perform tasks may be the threat of serious neg-
ative consequences for failing to perform.
Potential Limitations
Overall, the present study confirms the profile of nonprocrastinators and tra-
ditional procrastinators (i.e., passive procrastinators) in terms of their personal
characteristics and outcomes (see Dipboye & Phillips, 1990; Ferrari et al., 1992;
Lay & Schouwenburg, 1993; Tice & Baumeister, 1997; Vodanovich & Seib, 1997).
This consistency with prior findings increases our confidence in the present results.
Nevertheless, the current findings should be interpreted with caution because of
several limitations of the present study. Our sample consisted of university stu-
dents, who may possess different characteristics than other populations such as
organizational employees. Therefore, the generalizability of the current results to
populations engaging in other types of tasks is limited. Another limitation is that
all variables were self-reported at one point in time. This cross-sectional nature of
the data, which was obtained from a single source, raises the possibility of insen-
sitivity to temporal changes of variables, ambiguous causal directions of the
observed relationships, and boosted correlations among variables (Podsakoff &
Organ, 1986).
Practical Implications
Despite these limitations, the present study offers a new perspective on pro-
crastination and how people perceive and use their time. In terms of practical
implications, the current findings present a need to break our long-standing view
262 The Journal of Social Psychology
REFERENCES
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psy-
chological Review, 84, 191215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Losing control: How and why
people fail at self-regulation. San Diego: Academic Press.
Beswick, G., Rothblum, E., & Mann, L. (1988). Psychological antecedents to student pro-
crastination. Australian Psychologists, 23, 207217.
Blunt, A., & Pychyl, T. A. (1998). Volitional action and inaction in the lives of under-
graduate students: State orientation, procrastination and proneness to boredom. Per-
sonality Individual Difference, 24, 837846.
Bond, M. J., & Feather, N. T. (1988). Some correlates of structure and purpose in the use
of time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 321329.
Brownlow, S., & Reasinger, R. D. (2000). Putting off until tomorrow what is better done
today: Academic procrastination as a function of motivation toward college work. Jour-
nal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 1534.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A
Chu & Choi 263
MacArthur, J. D., & MacArthur, C. T. (2001). Perceived Stress Scale. Retrieved February
18, 2003, from Department of Psychology, University of California, San Francisco, Web
site: http://www.macses.ucsf.edu/Research/Psychosocial/notebook/PSS10.html
Owens, A., & Newbegin, I. (1997). Procrastination in high school achievement: A causal
structural model. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 869887.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Prob-
lems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531544.
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and
data analysis (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale. In J. Weinman,
S. Wright, & M. Johnston, Measures in health psychology: A users portfolio: Causal
and control beliefs (pp. 3537). Windsor, England: NFER-Nelson.
Sheikh, J. L., & Yesavage, J. A. (1982). Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS). Retrieved Feb-
ruary 18, 2003, from Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford Uni-
versity, Web site: http://www.stanford.edu/~yesavage/GDS.english.long.html
Shia, R. M. (1998). Assessing academic intrinsic motivation: A look at student goals and
personal strategy. Unpublished college thesis, Wheeling Jesuit University, Wheeling,
WV. Retrieved February 17, 2003, from http://www.cet.edu/research/papers/motiva-
tion/motivation.pdf
Steel, P., Brothen, T., & Wambach, C. (2001). Procrastination and personality perfor-
mance, and mood. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 95106.
Tice, D., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Longitudinal study of procrastination, performance,
stress, and health: The cost and benefits of dawdling. Psychological Science, 8,
454458.
Tuckman, B. W. (1991). The development and concurrent validity of the procrastination
scale. Education and Psychological Measurement, 51, 473480.
Vodanovich, S. J., & Seib, H. M. (1997). Relationship between time structure and pro-
crastination. Psychological Reports, 80, 211215.